From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail.avm.de (mail.avm.de [212.42.244.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CEBC0501F27; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 16:35:04 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.42.244.120 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788539707; cv=none; b=PlHJ9l5uGpDCKqnYmsbh0LK/B3K6iMzXFYw8ogzKlKwc75ARyG5I+5hLweXDA2BQFNvtUxVR9Y2Y6kV5y1qrvAR5v+Wbh4pBAJA60PKtEZ0fnIEANzpvaVwQK4SST3fkrKZtLglxvoY6rZfOaPw/8j0GW74fj8G4VLOQn6w2G9g= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1788539707; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Yrj+hpeTd851TNoAZJLqC56O4lZrGFKD+S3XWoI7bxI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=rronJ2Qev/v1T9ZTITVig12UwDYMewYbf84ocQz5RxGTA2CIkO73b9+Q9CQr6bg58t+DiyXJxlG4Ahk3o+qauov5+FYfuBhKkY6s7IXZCSaR5dr8QiNf/nzOQ40Kb+Z8d7JVQsdzWY3iFvdRBPjqed0JGE8Wa2ikkji/TGupX/4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=fritz.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fritz.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fritz.com header.i=@fritz.com header.b=qy02yK3V; arc=none smtp.client-ip=212.42.244.120 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=fritz.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=fritz.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fritz.com header.i=@fritz.com header.b="qy02yK3V" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=fritz.com; s=mail; t=1788539385; bh=Yrj+hpeTd851TNoAZJLqC56O4lZrGFKD+S3XWoI7bxI=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=qy02yK3VaN3DXRWeuWB1i9SbMdt7n2HiqKGhH7TS0aLkplN3ZkNRNfbf9E0hNXS4B WO3Si7A/BtWdvjs2Soc3wzHp+XNhLZq2AxLIABJPrLqdCZBu8z9BxnPvt6zCQWZ92S rsY7wwyuq+Mem0MdsCxlDWdQN6vdu++OopISjUPfZ5nJMNdgpOkgGzDfyuzbET2igF jAndKqyvHpKf2Plcw/aKwIJ1oDoCS1O/8XsNZDz8Onc4gsYwQbsyswTaKeNZ2FmuQY d+81bs0OcKPn5DjEi38M2NqwUVveAWjw2c9yeINeYuCP1xRpGRs7QHzesDYv+s86oW Qqp33mVvPuAFg== Received: from [2001:bf0:244:244::78] (helo=mail.avm.de) by mail.avm.de with ESMTP (eXpurgate 4.57.1) (envelope-from ) id 6a9af1f8-2a57-7f0000032729-7f000001a072-1 for ; Fri, 04 Sep 2026 18:29:44 +0200 Received: from mail-auth.fritz.com (unknown [IPv6:2001:bf0:244:244::78]) by mail.avm.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS; Fri, 4 Sep 2026 18:29:44 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2026 18:29:45 +0200 From: Nicolas Schier To: Guillaume Tucker Cc: Miguel Ojeda , Nathan Chancellor , Jonathan Corbet , Onur =?utf-8?B?w5Z6a2Fu?= , Nick Desaulniers , Miguel Ojeda , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, workflows@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, automated-testing@lists.yoctoproject.org, "kernelci lists.linux.dev" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] scripts: add TOML config to container tool Message-ID: <20260904-demonic-calm-swift-e7acae@l-nschier-aarch64> References: <7d8ba914cd174d716340bb2b88723bef0f330627.1787565460.git.gtucker@gtucker.io> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="IPfAD79JDW7zfCpg" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Organization: FRITZ! Technology GmbH x-ms-reactions: disallow X-purgate-ID: 149429::1788539384-60CA570C-3578E9C3/0/0 X-purgate-type: clean X-purgate-size: 3674 X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit https://www.eleven.de for further information) X-purgate: clean X-pfmilter: host: postfix-mx-01 mail-id: ED0A3A00CB external: no --IPfAD79JDW7zfCpg Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Aug 29, 2026 at 10:56:47AM +0200, Guillaume Tucker wrote: > Hi Miguel, >=20 > On 28/08/2026 7:35 pm, Miguel Ojeda wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 28, 2026 at 7:25=E2=80=AFPM Guillaume Tucker wrote: > > >=20 > > > It states Python 3.9 which was already older than the 3.10 minimum > > > set when the container tool was merged. Also my understanding is > > > that it's not a hard requirement for all the kernel tools, only for > > > building and producing a functioning kernel. If I misunderstood this > >=20 > > I didn't check at the moment, but at least back when the "(optional)" > > tag was removed, it was only required for certain configurations from > > what I understand (I am not sure why the tag was removed). > >=20 > > In any case, it is nice if we could just say that it is required -- it > > is quite useful to have around, especially due to its standard > > library. >=20 > OK so I'll leave this part as-is for now unless someone makes a > strong case for downgrading to v3.9, thanks for confirming. >=20 > > And regarding the minimum version, it would be nice to eventually have > > a single minimum for all Python scripts, no? Debian oldstable is > > already at 3.11, so I think we could perhaps bump the minimum already. > > And Debian stable is 3.13, which from your list would be enough for > > everything on your list, right? So we could perhaps set that as the > > actual minimum for everything in the future. >=20 > I was wondering about this too, especially since v3.10 is soon going > to reach end-of-life which means no more security patches. In > principle newer, version should be backwards compatible so if we just > bumped the minimum to v3.13 older scripts that were written for v3.9 > should still work - but it'd be nice to have a way to test that. >=20 > Well that's beyond this series anyway, maybe something for KernelCI? If I filtered the repology data correctly, bumping the minimum Python=20 version to v3.11 would be problematic for these (major) distributions: * Alpine Linux 3.17 * CentOS 8 * Debian 11 * Devuan 4.0 * OpenMandriva Cooker * OpenMandriva Rolling * Slackware 15.0 * Ubuntu 20.04 With the end of security support for Python 3.10, I think that is=20 acceptable for a minimum version bump. Bumping the minimum version of a tool used in scattered places in the=20 tree to a version that is just 3-4 years old should not be done too=20 careless, but I think for Python, I'd second bumping to v3.11. Kind regards, Nicolas --IPfAD79JDW7zfCpg Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAABCAAdFiEEDv+Fiet06YHnC6RpiMa8nIiabbgFAmqa8fMACgkQiMa8nIia bbixyRAAok+TmXbbb6xM1TJU3hJRO9fTlkGyhWWM5VdTj80zDQhhN7hL1K/jlGN8 Hd+zemhopY2iCVibgd5TQHPv8p46VLkRMqhJjiHDkCVujI+5o1MoWOQB9JvMyD5F AE+kGLQUFIOc4mThtasjotQtE4Ky8+HFTyrVtPZHMJ+y8Skcy8EUnd+UI3hhS7sN awX0EIePfaIBLx3SZolvKfjYh+ZZLBvjSEnz79yFgfp/8WHsb11mHY1cTViBdQoe J9aM/b8fXjE39CxoaXZuc9jeNaTSe4YHe+uUvU9lvEuzO9dzb5o6s7jmTZjNbCXu IlFux9HAIKBLX+/Qs4aBU5hddUDnEml3jpjEtdmSz6cTzGMGjnyOslK0m3pWPbuw EKQrExRUSBctGzngeX3emFHl5RqVvn6v+OXV4TfutZz0GWYANaAOnbE9HyFNCubi VcXiA5m0+ZDZrcG+GVeEblyMIJIuwBSjmBubfMHhbsUbUhX/MIdLtxtmrllcAiFu KXznxCMezZRgySeQQXih1PMlKJCLG7hjA45Eax/vWPLNqXELMxUAva/H07JakPZx CTHpFfxmz5YK1RLub8aUXJ1mUiM+BO72B3egt45KhWIZ6VHkaFwBYOySJcUVAoO/ MamfX/AX9544UeOipU45hsG+kwkviQwJvUsrLOXyU1MSsglAajM= =AVIV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --IPfAD79JDW7zfCpg--